Ethics in Public Service

By Dr. David L. Perry

Adapted from a workshop conducted for Leadership Santa Clara on 8
June 2000.

Overview:

- Highlight some current ethical issues in public service.
- Identify ethics in relation to law, etiquette, and empirical disciplines.
- Examine theories challenging the objectivity of morality.
- Identify some general ethical principles, and some specific to public
officials.
- Note some conflicts among ethical obligations.
- Provide a framework for analyzing ethical issues & making ethical
decisions.
- Analyze some contending arguments about capital punishment.
- Explore questions about who or what should count in moral deliberations.
- Discuss issues surrounding land & housing in the Bay Area.

Some facts suggesting current ethical issues in public service:

- The number of homeless people in the Bay Area is apparently increasing.

- Thousands of California residents have no health insurance: they make
just enough income to disqualify for Medicaid, but are too poor to afford
private health insurance, or they work for employers who dont provide
it.

- The gambling industry is now the largest financial contributor to California
legislators.

- An elected official allegedly encouraged contributions from insurance
companies that his agency regulates to fund nonprofit organizations that
promoted his own political prestige, then allowed those companies to avoid
paying full compensation to policyholders. (See San
Jose Mercury News, 8 June 2000.)

- A newspaper executive allegedly promised to curb editorial criticism
of an elected official, in exchange for that official not opposing his
companys merger with another newspaper (GradetheNews.org).

- Some local ranchers are being prevented from selling certain parts
of their land to wineries, because their ponds are considered essential
to the survival of a rare salamander species.

- A major local employer wants to build a large new production facility
and a parking lot; this will eliminate some fragile wetland areas and
displace some rare burrowing owls. (See San Jose Mercury News,
7 June 2000.)

In many cases we could spell out the ethical issues that arise here clearly
and precisely. In other cases we might only have a vague sense of unease
about them, and be unable to distinguish ethical considerations from others.

What is ethics?

The words "ethics" and "morality" have Greek and
Latin origins, respectively. Traditionally they referred to customary
values and rules of conduct (as in "cultural ethos" and "social
mores"), as well as insights about what counts as human excellence
and flourishing. "Ethics" and "morality" are often
used interchangeably by us today. But ethics also refers to moral philosophy,
i.e., a discipline of critical analysis of the meaning and justification
of moral beliefs.

Ethics and morality--along with law and etiquette--are essentially normative,
that is, they prescribe human behavior as obligatory, prohibited, or permissible.
Theres considerable overlap between ethics and law, and ethics and
etiquette. Much of the law embodies ethical principles: respect for basic
rights to life, property, and the right of citizens to participate in
political life. Its usually unethical to break the law. A breach
of etiquette can also be unethical if it is done intentionally to offend
someone simply for ones own amusement.

Ethics goes beyond etiquette, though, to include matters that nearly
every human society considers significant: actions such as lying, breaking
a promise or killing someone are more serious than social faux pas.
Ethics also has to do with human character and motivation, which in many
cases are irrelevant to etiquette and law. And law and etiquette can sometimes
be criticized on moral grounds: consider U.S. laws and customs that historically
treated African Americans and women as less than full citizens.

In contrast to ethics and other normative disciplines, many fields of
study such as the natural sciences, psychology, history and economics
are empirical, meaning that they attempt to describe, explain or
predict events or motives or actions. In general, empirical disciplines
deal with facts and probabilities, while normative disciplines promote
or assess values. Empirical disciplines study what exists, what happened,
or what tends to happen under certain conditions; their claims can at
least in theory be tested using controlled scientific methods or in light
of the best available evidence. Moral principles state how human beings
ought to treat one another; moral claims cannot be proven or disproven
by empirical means alone.

Ethical arguments often rely on empirical assumptions, though. And empirical
claims are often made in ways that attempt to persuade people to accept
a moral conclusion. In order to be able to tell whether ethical arguments
are sound or cogent, we need to be able to distinguish between different
types of moral claims, and between moral and empirical claims. We also
must determine whether those claims are being used properly in support
of moral conclusions. Ill come back to this later in connection
with the issue of capital punishment.

Is morality objective? In other words, are there moral obligations
that apply to all rational beings?

Consider some theories that deny this, and some reasons why those theories
fail (cf. James Rachels, Elements of Moral Philosophy, third edition,
1999):

Nihilism: Morality is an illusion; there are no moral obligations.
This would mean that theres nothing inherently wrong with something
like cruelty, which seems strongly counterintuitive. A nihilist would
have no grounds upon which to argue rationally against someone else who
wanted to harm him or her just for the fun of it.

Psychological egoism: We cant avoid being selfish, hence
theres no point in reasoning about ethics. Selfishness can sometimes
masquerade as altruism, to be sure. But PE is too sweeping and reductionistic:
even if showing compassion toward others makes you happy, that isnt
necessarily why you do it. Even if we are sometimes selfish, we can have
unselfish motives, too.

Normative egoism: I have no moral obligations to anyone else;
only my interests count in deciding what I should do. But if others
interests are similar to yours in relevant ways, it's arbitrary and thus
irrational to ignore or discount theirs.

Subjective relativism: Ethics is relative to individual beliefs;
whatever you believe is right is right "for you." But consider
examples of rape, child abuse, torture, and slavery. Even if the perpetrators
of such things believe them to be okay, that doesnt make them right.

Cultural relativism: Ethics is relative to cultural beliefs.
Clearly some cultural differences are significant, e.g., how the elderly
are treated, or the status of women. But many values and rules are shared
across cultures, such as those against lying, stealing, and murder. More
importantly, the refutation of CR is like that of subjectivism: a cultures
belief in something doesnt make it true "for them." (Is
the earth really flat for people who believe its flat?) Moral disagreement
between cultures doesnt prove theres no objectively true morality.
We need to be on guard against ethnocentrism, but we shouldnt be
afraid to challenge cultural beliefs and practices that seem to violate
basic human rights.

Many people in this country are "knee-jerk relativists," because
they worry about "imposing" values on anyone else. But few people
are comfortable remaining relativists after the implications of such views
are recognized. All of the theories above fail to prove that moral principles
cant be objective in some sense. Rejecting them doesnt necessarily
lead to arrogance or imperialism, since our own views are subject to rational
critique and revision like everyone elses. The point is to stand
by those ethical principles that have the best reasons supporting them,
and to refine or reject principles that are shown to be based on bad reasoning.

What are some ethical principles that seem to apply objectively to
all of us?

- Dont solicit or accept bribes from people seeking to influence
your official decisions.

- Dont invest in property or companies that could be affected by
your official decisions.

In the revised "Code of Ethics and Values" of the City of Santa
Clara, section 1.f. says, "I will show respect for persons ."
The City Council in discussing the implications of this principle recently
added, "I will not rubber-hose the staff in a public meeting. I will
not name-call, storm off, snipe, talk under my breath with others while
the public is testifying, or in other ways demean staff, [the] public,
or other commissioners during public meetings."

Are any moral principles, rules or values absolute?

Possibly: Consider "Dont rape," and "Dont
torture children or animals." There are no clear exceptions to those
rules. But its often very difficult to state moral rules that arent
vulnerable to counterexamples: "Dont kill."  Never
in self-defense? Never in defense of other innocent people? Never kill
animals to survive? "Dont lie"  Even to save lives
or to prevent other serious harm? Principles can sometimes be strengthened,
though, by incorporating exceptional cases. By refining general principles
in "conversation" with concrete rules, we can hope to achieve
what the philosopher John Rawls called "reflective equilibrium"
(A Theory of Justice, 1971, revised 1999).

Perhaps most ethical principles should be considered prima facie
binding on us: i.e., universal (not relative to cultural or individual
beliefs) and timeless (slavery, e.g., was never objectively ethical),
but not absolute. Ethical principles will often reinforce each
other in opposition to selfishness and cruelty. But there will sometimes
be situations where ethical principles conflict with one another, and
we cant always establish in advance which should take precedence.
(This approach was developed by the philosopher W. D. Ross in The Right
and the Good, 1930.)

Consider some of the moral conflicts and tradeoffs in the following cases:

- Paternalistic laws (ones that restrict the freedom of persons for their
own good): laws requiring seat belts, air bags, motorcycle helmets; involuntary
commitment of the mentally ill (how much must a depressed or psychotic
person suffer before we can rightly override their refusal of treatment?).

- Duties of public officials to be open and accountable to citizens,
vs. the need for secrecy in sensitive diplomatic negotiations, police
undercover operations etc.

Conflict is probably inevitable in democratic politics. Even if we could
agree at the level of abstract principles and general policies, we might
still disagree on how to apply them: "Ill pay taxes to build
freeways, airports, homeless shelters, mental hospitals, prisons and landfills,
but dont put them in my neighborhood!" Politicians and civil
servants cannot hope to please everyone. Activists should not assume that
their values are the only ones worth promoting.

A framework for analyzing ethical issues and making ethical decisions:

Explain the issue: What seems to be at stake morally? Outline
the contending arguments, clarifying their explicit claims and implicit
assumptions.

Explore the relevant facts: What empirical claims are being made?
(Historical, predictive etc.) Is there adequate and unambiguous evidence
of what happened? How plausible are the claims made about what is likely
to happen? Are any important empirical studies being ignored?

Imagine alternative actions: What could be done instead?

Assess the relevant moral claims and values: Are good reasons
offered in support of them, or are they asserted without justification?
Who will be helped and harmed by alternative actions? Is the argument
exclusively consequentialist? If so, does it ignore non-consequentialist
values or rights? If some interests or rights are claimed to take precedence
over others, is that claim reasonable? Are any fundamental rights of persons
at risk?

Evaluate logical soundness and cogency: Eliminate irrelevant claims
and insinuations, such as ad hominem attacks on opponents
character to distract the audience from the issue at hand (an endemic
problem in politics!). Does the argument flow logically? Does its conclusion
follow from its premises in a valid or strong way?

Eliminate or reduce obstacles to right action: Are there incentives
or pressures to do the wrong thing? (Political, social, financial, psychological.)
If so, can they be alleviated, negotiated, or countered? How can ethical
standards be reinforced in our organization, e.g., in the ways in which
we establish objectives, evaluate and reward performance, and investigate
misconduct?

Consider some contending arguments about capital punishment (CP):

Note that I not only analyze them, but indicate which points I find
most compelling.

- CP prevents murderers from ever killing again. (Empirical) But life
in prison without parole can be just as effective as CP in that regard.

- CP is not effective in deterring murder. (Empirical) E.g., of the
total number of people executed in the U.S. since 1976, Texas has been
responsible for over 1/3; but it also has one of the highest per-capita
murder rates.

- If CP were effective in deterring murder, then it would be morally
justified. (Consequentialist) But punishment is only appropriate for
those who are guilty of crimes. Its wrong to punish the innocent
even if doing so is effective in deterring crime. (Non-Consequentialist)
Thus even if CP were effective as a deterrent (or otherwise produced
better consequences than no CP), that would not make it right.

- CP is inherently unethical; its no better than murder itself.
(Non-Consequentialist) But not if a murderer can rightly be said to
forfeit his right to life; in that case, the state in executing him does
not necessarily wrong him in the sense that he wronged his innocent victim.

- CP is an appropriate form of retribution for certain crimes.
(Non-Consequentialist) Thus CP could be justified even if its
worthless as a deterrent.

- In many cases, people have been convicted of murder in the U.S.
due to shoddy police work, false testimony by criminals who were offered
incentives by prosecutors, and incompetent defense lawyers. Some innocent
people may have been executed as a result. (Empirical)

- CP should be abolished if it cannot be administered in consistently
just ways, or suspended until it can. (Non-Consequentialist) Note
the recent action taken by the Governor of Illinois.

- Advances in forensic science and technology, including genetic tests,
can or could eliminate ambiguities in many murder cases. (Empirical)

Who or what should count in our moral deliberations?

- How wide should our circle of moral concern extend?

- Who or what has a legitimate stake in what we might do?

- Who should be heard but isnt being heard? Who among us is vulnerable,
suffering, and voiceless?

- Are people the only ones who should count? If so, is it because of
our intelligence? Then why not include chimps, dolphins etc.?

- If intelligence is what really matters, what about people with severe
mental retardation?

- Should we expand the circle to include all sentient creatures, i.e.,
those capable of experience and suffering?

- Could it also be wrong to destroy non-sentient living things like trees
or plants, even if they cant experience anything and thus cant
be said to have interests in living? Do they have inherent value apart
from their usefulness to us?

- Should we try to preserve the biodiversity of existing ecosystems?

- Is it possible to see inherent worth in all living things, and yet
not risk human survival? Can we consistently care for animals and still
eat some of them or use them to test pharmaceuticals?

- Could it ever be immoral to destroy inanimate things like rock formations,
if doing so caused no living creature to suffer?

- Is there an appropriate hierarchy of moral status? Do some species
interests always take precedence over those of "lower" species?
Or should similar interests across species be treated similarly? E.g.,
does the suffering of a chimp "weigh" the same as the suffering
of a child?

Scenario for discussion: Land and housing in the Bay Area:

Demand for housing is exceeding supply. Five jobs are created for every
one home. Rents and home prices have gone up in recent years at rates
higher than most of the rest of the U.S. Median price of a home in Santa
Clara County went up 40% in past year.

Other contributing factors:

- Geography: water and mountains constrain housing growth and transportation
(compare a city like Indianapolis with extensive prairie in which to expand);

Many people benefit from these trends: e.g., those who bought homes in
the early 1990s have seen their value increase tremendously. But others
have been hurt: their income cant keep up with rising rents; their
rental apartment "goes condo" and they cant afford to
buy it; elderly and working poor are hardest hit. Homelessness is increasing.

Some options for local governments:

- Dont intervene further: allow the market to run within existing
zoning and environmental constraints (or eliminate some or all of those
constraints).

- If some industrial areas are not being used, change their zoning to
residential.

- Buy land and build housing; subsidize rents or mortgages for people
who otherwise could not afford housing.

- Limit or reduce the amount of land set aside for environmental or recreation
purposes.

The views expressed on this site are the author's. The
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics does not advocate particular positions
but seeks to encourage dialogue on the ethical dimensions of current
issues. The Center welcomes comments
and alternative points of view.